The Extremism Commission fails to hold important discussions related to the prevention of contemporary extremism.
Published: 01/04/2024 19:00
This is a debate post. Any opinions expressed in the text are the responsibility of the writer. If you want to participate in the debate, you can read how here.
Both internationally and in Norway, research has observed that the pandemic has led to new forms of extremism.
People who were skeptical of the authorities’ closure of society and vaccination sought together both in online forums and physical demonstrations. Intellectual property and ideas that had previously belonged to extreme groups were in this situation allowed to flow freely between people with different ideological affiliations.
“Salad Bar Terrorism”
This form of extremism has been called “salad bar terrorism” because individuals and groups “borrow” political ideas and forms of attack across what were previously perceived as different ideological groups.
The mistrust of the state that the new forms of extremism have in common is manifold. But central to this worldview is often the belief that the world is ruled by an evil, corrupt elite who control the people, the media and the authorities. Although many of these ideas’ supporters are not necessarily against democracy, they often reject the so-called elites and consider alternative political models.
These are not just ideas that are widespread in the United States, and which led to the storming of Congress. These ideas are also found in Europe. The Dutch security authorities, for example, estimate that there are 100,000 people in the country who believe in the idea that an evil elite exists.
Has given rise to concrete terrorist plans
These ideas are also expressed in the form of concrete terrorist plans in Europe. This comes on top of the fact that it has been observed that other countries are trying to further radicalize individuals with an already extreme worldview. For example, when several Norwegians received text messages urging them to carry out terrorist attacks because of Koran burning. PST’s assessment was that the purpose was to create division in Norwegian society.
International research has shown that the new form of extremism represents a new type of prevention challenge because followers come from different walks of life, are of different ages and come from different ideological backgrounds. Most of the people who support this ideology will not resort to violent actions, but these ideas have the potential to radicalize individuals who are willing to resort to violence in Norway as well – something that the Extremism Commission also describes.
Where is the limit?
Nevertheless, the question of when we as a society want the authorities to intervene against this threat remains unanswered. Does the limit for radicalization cross when you have been on an extremist website, when you have discussed such ideas with others, or when you are planning a violent attack? And where is the line between legitimate criticism and extremism in a democratic society where individuals expect to be able to exercise their right to criticize both the authorities and each other.
By not being willing to discuss how the new form of extremism challenges the Norwegian prevention model, the Commission on Extremism fails to have important discussions about what should be considered legitimate prevention of extremism.
